Descents From James V for William Butler Duncan of Manhattan (1830-1912)

[Brad Verity]

I’ve been researching the ancestry of Violet Hemsley (Duncan) (Mann-Thomson) Fitzgerald (1881-1968), whose son Reginald Patrick Fitzgerald of Petworth, Sussex, Commander Royal Navy 1955-64 (1921-2002) can be found at The Peerage website, here:
http://www.thepeerage.com/p66131.htm#i661306

Violet’s uncle, William Butler Duncan of New York City (1830-1912), was a Scottish-American banker and railroad magnate who during the 1860s entertained the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and his younger brother the Duke of Connaught, at his mansion on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. His wife was Jane Percy Sargent (1833-1905), granddaughter of Winthrop Sargent (1753-1820), Governor of the Mississippi Territory 1798-1801. W. Butler Duncan has a Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Butler_Duncan

He can also be found in the Genealogics database, here:
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00687998&tree=LEO

Duncan’s son-in-law, journalist Paul Dana (1852-1930), was the editor of the New York ‘Sun’ newspaper from 1897-1903. Duncan’s daughter, Dame Jessie Percy Butler Wilton (Duncan) Phipps (1855-1934), has an entry in ODNB:
https://www.oxforddnb.com/search?q=Jessie+Phipps&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true

As does the granddaughter of Dame Jessie Phipps, British actress Joyce Grenfell (1910-1979):
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-31172?rskey=4guOQL&result=1

This Duncan family is covered in the article ‘Duncan late of Knossington Grange’ in Burke’s Landed Gentry 13th Edn (1921), p. 534.

It is also covered much more thoroughly in the article ‘Alexander Duncan (1805-1889) of Scotland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and England’ by Kip Sperry in the book ‘Genealogies of Rhode Island Families: From The New England Historical and Genealogical Register’ Vol. I (1989), pp. 430-437.

None of the above sources have traced the royal ancestry of the Duncans of Providence, Rhode Island. Given the prominence of several descendants, in both the U.S. and Britain, it may make a nice addition to a subsequent edition of Gary Boyd Roberts’s ‘Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants’ series.

Through his father, William Butler Duncan of New York City, his daughter Dame Jessie Phipps, and his granddaughter Joyce Grenfell, descend from two of the illegitimate sons of James V of Scotland.

James V had two sons A1 and B1 (see below):
A1) Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney (1533-1593) m. Lady Janet Kennedy (c.1542-1598), and had
A2) Lady Mary Stewart (b. c.1562) m. Patrick, 6th Lord Gray (c.1560-1611, descended from Edward III), and had
A3) Hon. Jane Gray (c.1590-1640) m. John Wemyss, 1st Earl Wemyss (1586-1649, descended from Edward III), and had
A4) Lady Elizabeth Wemyss (d. 1667) m. Sir John Aytoun of that Ilk (c.1600-1676), and had
A5) Margaret Aytoun (b. 1647) m. Sir Archibald Hope, Lord Rankeillor (1639-1706, descended from Edward III), and had
A6) Margaret Hope (1677-1751) m. Patrick Scott, 2nd of Rossie House (1664-1731), and had
A7) Archibald Scott, 3rd of Rossie House (c.1703-1773) m. Janet Scott of Benholm (b. 1703), and had
A8) PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House, Craig, Forfarshire, Scotland, b. c.1728; d. 14 Apr. 1814 Nether Dysart House, Lunan, Forfarshire, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. MARGARET FORBES (see B8 below), and had
A9) JANET SCOTT, b. 19 Jan. 1779 Rossie House, bap. 24 Jan. 1779 Craig Parish Kirk, Forfarshire; d. 5 June 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath, Forfarshire, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard; m. 31 Aug. 1799 St Mary Church, Maryton, Forfarshire, ALEXANDER DUNCAN of Parkhill House, surgeon for Honorable East India Company (b. 29 Jan. 1758; d. 4 Aug. 1832, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard), son of David Duncan of Brechin, merchant & Margaret Jamieson, and had
A10) ALEXANDER DUNCAN of Providence, Rhode Island and of Knossington Grange, Leicestershire, banker and lawyer, b. 25 May 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath; d. 14 Oct. 1889 North House, Putney, Surrey, bur. 18 Oct. 1889 St Peter Church, Knossington; m. 11 Oct. 1827 New Haven, Connecticut, SARAH BUTLER (b. 16 May 1806 Rhode Island; d. 26 Dec. 1888 7 Princes Gate, London, bur. 31 Dec. 1888 St Peter Church, Knossington), dau. of Samuel Butler of Providence, Rhode Island, merchant & master mariner (c.1755-1814) & Sarah Whipple (c.1761-1811), and had
A11) WILLIAM BUTLER DUNCAN of Manhattan, New York, banker & railroad executive, b. 17 Mar. 1830 No. 3 Heriot Row, Edinburgh, Scotland; d. 20 June 1912 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence, Rhode Island; m. 22 Nov. 1853 New Orleans, Louisiana, JANE PERCY SARGENT (b. 25 Aug. 1833 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, bap. 15 Apr. 1835 St Stephen Episcopal Church, Philadelphia; d. 11 Dec. 1905 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence), dau. of George Washington Sargent of Philadelphia (1802-1864) & Margaret Isabella Jessie Percy (c.1796-1865), and had issue, two sons and two daughters.

B1) James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, illegit. (1531-1570) m. Lady Agnes Keith (c.1544-1588, descended from James I of Scotland), and had
B2) Elizabeth Stewart, 2nd Countess of Moray (1565-1591) m. James Stewart, 2nd Earl of Moray (1565-1592, descended from Edward III), and had
B3) Lady Grizel Stewart (b. c.1590) m. Sir Robert Innes, 1st Baronet of That Ilk (1584-1658, descended from James IV), and had
B4) Sir Robert Innes, 2nd Baronet of That Ilk (d. 1689) m. Hon. Jean Ross (descended from James II of Scotland), and had
B5) Margaret Innes m. Hugh Rose, 14th Laird of Kilravock Castle (d. 1687), and had
B6) Margaret Rose m. Sir William Forbes, 3rd Baronet of Craigievar (1660-c.1730, descended from Edward III), and had
B7) Sir Arthur Forbes, 4th Baronet of Craigievar (1709-1773) m. 2nd Margaret Strachan, and had
B8) MARGARET FORBES, b. c.1752; d. 12 July 1839, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House (see A8 above)

A Very Merry Christmas to all.

Cheers, ------Brad

[Leslie Mahler]

Brad,
Many thanks for sharing these interesting lineages. The newest edition of the compilation
of Royal Descents by Gary Roberts was just published in November. Details are here:

https://genealogical.com/2022/11/07/announcing-the-new-second-edition-of-royal-descents-of-900-immigrants-by-gary-boyd-roberts/

The next edition of this publication will probably be in a few years.

Leslie

[Leslie Mahler]

This person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Martin
reportedly has a number of royal descents, including a line from Henry VII
according to the information given here:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Martin-24355
Finding documentation for the most recent generations of the Fleming
& Willett families might be a challenge, unless there are newspaper notices about them.

Leslie

[Brad Verity]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-8, Leslie Mahler wrote:
> Many thanks for sharing these interesting lineages. The newest edition of the compilation
> of Royal Descents by Gary Roberts was just published in November. Details are here:
>
> https://genealogical.com/2022/11/07/announcing-the-new-second-edition-of-royal-descents-of-900-immigrants-by-gary-boyd-roberts/

> The next edition of this publication will probably be in a few years.

Thank you, Leslie, for the link to the new RD900 edition. I've added it to my list of books to purchase. Hopefully I'll get it in the next couple months.

From the above link: "New immigrants include Mrs. Elizabeth Epes Chute, Mrs. Mary Epes Duncan (one of whose grandsons was Boston Brahmin family founder Epes Sargent, ancestor of John Singer Sargent)..."

Which monarch does Epes Sargent descend from? He is a direct paternal ancestor of Jane Percy (Sargent) Duncan, wife of William Butler Duncan. So it seems she also has a royal descent behind her.

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-8, Leslie Mahler wrote:
> This person
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Martin
> reportedly has a number of royal descents, including a line from Henry VII
> according to the information given here:
> https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Martin-24355
> Finding documentation for the most recent generations of the Fleming
> & Willett families might be a challenge, unless there are newspaper notices about them.

I'll take a look into this Henry VII descent for Chris Martin of Coldplay. Thank you for sharing the link, Leslie.

I've finally finished adding the line you shared last year, from Edward III to Brian May (now Sir Brian May) of Queen, to my database. I'll share the additional details to it that I uncovered, in a separate post.

Thanks & Cheers, -----Brad

[JBrand]

Brad, the Epes immigrants are shown to descend from Henry I of England, via Robert of Gloucester, de Clare, de Say, Cheyne, at Towne, Sondes, Bettenham, Fisher, and Epes (2:1039-40). This line is credited to Alexander Bannerman and "several lineage-society applicants" who are not named.

The new edition has interesting updates, showing Queen Camilla as a descendant of Warham Horsmanden of Virginia (credited to Leslie), plus Jill Biden's line from Mary (Underhill) Stites of New York, who has been upgraded to an Edward I line. Also, a line from Joanna (Quarles) Smith to President Gerald Ford, and from Truman's ancestor Thomas Monteith of Virginia (a James IV line) to Ellen Herndon, Mrs. President Chester A. Arthur.

[taf]

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:48:12 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> Brad, the Epes immigrants are shown to descend from Henry I of England, via Robert of Gloucester, de Clare, de Say, Cheyne, at Towne, Sondes, Bettenham, Fisher, and Epes (2:1039-40). This line is credited to Alexander Bannerman and "several lineage-society applicants" who are not named.
>

A critical link in tis descent was discussed here a year ago, but it sort of got distracted and petered out without resolution. Basically, it involves 'correcting' a visitation pedigree naming the at Towne father-in-law as William Cheyne with the Richard Cheyne with the desired descent, with some circumstantial evidence but nothing direct to support the link. Maybe there is something additional not raised in the discussion, but as it stood there, I considered it to be wanting (and I am not more convinced knowing that it has 'several lineage-society applicants' behind it).

taf

[JBrand]

Yep, I would guess Bannerman et al. were not aware of the discussion here.

[taf]

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:47:33 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> Yep, I would guess Bannerman et al. were not aware of the discussion here.

In all fairness, I don't think I would have changed my mind based on the discussion here - it wasn't exactly insightful or detailed. For all I know it may be legit, its just that what was stated hear made it look like it was almost entirely dependent on (a different) Bannerman correcting a visitation, and the location of arms near each other in a window. I don't know what they have beyond this, if anything.

taf

[JBrand]

Main sources seem to be St Olave Hart Street register; _Ancestry of Priscilla Baker_ (1870); Walter G. Davis on Reade and Epes; Bannerman's Kent Visitations; 1594 and 1619 Kent Visitations; Richardson's Royal Ancestry (early generations).

Generation 6 is "Sir William de Say = Sybil ____." This is quite similar to the generation 10 in the Gov. William Leete line, also "Sir Willam de Say = Sybil ____" (2:857). I guess it is another couple with the same names, since the previous generation in the Leete line is Robert de Say and Alice Stratfield; the earlier generation in Epes line being Geoffrey de Say and Hawise de Clare.

[taf]

Never looked at the Say portion. I was unsatisfied over the identification of the Cheyne who was father-in-law of Towne.

taf

[JBrand]

This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover

But, right, there could be problems with more recent generations.

[taf]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:

> This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover

Indeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)

compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:

Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]

As you say, quite different.

Looking at CP:
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
(by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say

CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to each wife.

Overall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allow these royal connections. The CP line does look a little tight, but not prohibitively so - 5 x 20yr generations, but it seems well researched, with the generation-to-generation transitions each referenced, and the earliest generations are well known due to the passage of the Earldom of Essex to the daughter-in-law of the first WIlliam's William's elder son, rather than the surviving male line of Geoffrey. There is no space for a connection to the Clare/Gloucester marriage above the William married to Beatrice de Mandeville, and the CP acocunt looks solid, and does not permit an extra generation to be shoehorned between those of the Cheney and Marshall marriages.

What exactly does the Roberts line look like?

taf

[JBrand]

Roberts has ...

4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety

5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety

6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____

7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne

8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland

9 Richard de Cheyne = ______

10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle

11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne

So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?

[JBrand]

Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:

Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
William de Say = Sybil _____

Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne

William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
Robert de Cheyne = _____
Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."

So, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of Geoffrey Crek). He married (2nd) before Easter Term 1242, Aline ____, widow of Hubert de Vaux (living 1235/6), of Surlingham, Suffolk. His wife, Aline, was living in Hilary Term, 1244. In 1265 he was granted free warren in his demesne lands at Rickling, Essex, and Denham, Suffolk. Geoffrey de Say died 1265/71. ..."

[taf]

Ah, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the Magna Carta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reports that Geoffrey son of William de Say granted Rickling to his son Geoffrey, and that Geoffrey de Say II later confirmed the grant (which would make no sense were he the original recipient - there were clearly two Geoffreys in this generation). CP also relates that two grants by Walkelin Maminot and Geoffrey de Say were confirmed by Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and his wife Alice de Cheney, and also confirmed by William de Say, son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. He adds that by 1200, the Say barony consisted almost entirely of formerly Maminot lands.

Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.

[taf]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:

> Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
>

> Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
> Robert de Cheyne = _____
> Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."
>

This clearly comes from the visitation of Berkshire publication, which has a Cheyne of Woodhey pedigree. It begins with:

Alexander Cheney d. 24 Edw. I [1295-6], married to Agnes de Say, daughter of William de Say, "by whome came the manor of Patricksborne".

William Cheney, aged 22 at father's death, married Margaret, daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Shirland of Shirland.

i. William Cheney, d. 8 Edw III [1334-5] aged 58 s.p.
ii. [Sir] Robert de Cheney [of Shirland in the Isle of Sheppey, Kent], brother and heir, 30 years old, d. 38 Edw III [1364-5]. {no marriage given}

[Sir] Richard Cheney [of Shirland], aged 10 in 38 Edw III. married Margery, daughter of coheriess of Robert Crall [of Crall, Sussex] and Margaret, daughter and heiress of Simon Pepplesham

It then gives the same two sons and five daughters, among whom is:

Joane ux. Tho. Atrown [Towne of whome com. Somes].

[As an aside, the dating here smacks of ipms, and sure enough, there is one for Alex, naming his heir as Wm, aged 22, and one for William 8 Edw III that refers to Patricksborne as formerly held in chief by WIlliam de Say, and that 60 years ago he gave it by charter to Alexander de Cheyny, grandfather of the said William de Cheyny, and to Agnes his wife. {60 years before 1334/5 puts it about the same time as 22 years before 1295/6, William's birth, so this was likely a marriage settlement on his parents and he was born within the year.} Then it gets a bit convoluted - I think the abstractor was confused. It says that on Alexander's death it passed to the said William {surely instead to the father of the said William}, who gave it to Margaret de Sckirlond and her heirs, who in turn gave it to William de Cheyny, son of Alexander and Agnes, and to Margaret, his wife and the heirs of their bodies - this seems to be a rendering of a fine. Then William de Cheyny son of William and Margaret died siezed of it, leaving as heir his brother Robert, aged 30 and more. {If William the younger really was aged 58 as the visitation suggests, and I have found nothing to support this, then Robert was certainly aged 30 and A LOT more.} Finally, we get an ipm for Robert Cheyne naming his sons Richard aged 10 and Roger aged 6. At least this portion of the pedigree is solid.]

The pedigree is taken from M.S. Ashmole 852, with additions (in brackets here) from Harleian M.S. 1532. Though in the prior discussion this was characterized as coming from the 1532 visitation, the Ashmole ms in which it appeared seems to have been compiled as a research aid for the compilation of the 1665/6 visitation. The Cheney pedigree in the 1532 visitation makes no mention of any of these people. THe editor says of these pedigrees absent from the earlier visitations, "Unfortunately, their origin is not even suggested." Harleian 1532 (perhaps the source of the confusion - that is the manuscript number, not the year) is described as "the visitation of 1566 with additions from that of 1623 and other Pedigrees", and the material in question is in neither 1566 nor 1623. This pedigree, then dates from the 17th century in its surviving copies, and hence after the 1574 Kent visitation Sondes pedigree , apparently taken from the COllege of Arms original, that reports something different, that Thomas Towne married "Joane, daughter and heiress of William Cheyney, for whicih the editor has then added in way of correction, "[Richard Cheyney of Sheppey]".

[JBrand]

Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?

As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover

Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these Says.

[Johnny Brananas]

"He [John de Preaux or Pratellis] had a moiety of Patricksbourne by Joanna de Bornes (Hasted, Hist. of Kent, calls her Margery), which he gave soon after (A.D. 1200) to his newly-erected Priory of Beaulieu. His wife's possessions after his death went to Jeffrey de Say. The other moiety of Patricksbourne went to Say. Sir W. de Say (Hen. III) gave it to Sir Alex. de Cheney."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+say%22+alice+cheney&pg=RA14-PA4&printsec=frontcover

[Johnny Brananas]

[6 Henry VI] ..."John Willecotes, Esq., was seized in demesne of the manor of Great Tywe [Tewe] of the King as of his honour of Chester, by the service of a knight's fee, which manor he had granted, long before his death, by charter produced, to Richard Crable [? Cralle] of Sussex, Esq., and Alexander Cheyne of Kent, and Thomas Frankleyn, to hold, &c. ..."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=willecotes+crable&pg=RA14-PA6&printsec=frontcover

[Johnny Brananas]

"William de Say of Sawbridgeworth, Herts., a baron by tenure, died early in 1272, leaving William his son and heir, who was born on 20th Nov. 1252, and a daughter Agnes, who was then already the wife of Alexnder de Cheney. The age of these children makes it clear that Mary [de Say, their father's widow, who remarried to Ufford] was not their mother, as the son and heir of her second marriage was nearly 27 years younger than his supposed half-brother William de Say. Mary's parentage is wholly unknown."

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t11p14v10&view=1up&seq=365&q1=%22it%20clear%20that%20Mary%20was%20not%20their%20mother%22

So in CP's scheme, the last person in the descent should be the father of Agnes (de Say) Cheyney ...

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:55:42 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> "William de Say of Sawbridgeworth, Herts., a baron by tenure, died early in 1272, leaving William his son and heir, who was born on 20th Nov. 1252, and a daughter Agnes, who was then already the wife of Alexnder de Cheney. The age of these children makes it clear that Mary [de Say, their father's widow, who remarried to Ufford] was not their mother, as the son and heir of her second marriage was nearly 27 years younger than his supposed half-brother William de Say. Mary's parentage is wholly unknown."
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t11p14v10&view=1up&seq=365&q1=%22it%20clear%20that%20Mary%20was%20not%20their%20mother%22
>
> So in CP's scheme, the last person in the descent should be the father of Agnes (de Say) Cheyney ...
> William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
> Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
> (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
> William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary

Yes, that was the clear implication, with the next William, the pseudo-MP, being a contemporary of Alexander [and his Say wife]. The dating given here is derived from another ipm, for William de Sey, 12 Feb 56 Hen III, his heir being son William aged 18 or 19 (in different returns) on feast of St Edmund the King last.

taf

[taf]

I had seen the early marriage claim before, that it was Geoffrey, father of the Mandeville brother-in-law, who made this marriage, but I never remember seeing any direct evidence for it and was always soemwhat dubious over it but never directly investigated it. Richardson dismisses this as a genealogical doppelganger of the later marriage.

The version as given by Roberts is apparently the same that Richardson posted here, and represents a change of opinion from teh earlier work you summarized:

https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/oJ7DigECN4s/m/bdD2WpTv6noJ

Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, and had by these wives Geoffrey IIA married to Hawise de Clare and Geoffrey IIB. However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent. He also seems to be parsing a document differently than the CP editor does. This (the Ancient Deeds citation) is what CP summarizes as by 'Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife', and further confirmed by William de Say son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. CP clearly parsed this as "Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and Agnes his wife" - i.e. Agnes was wife of the confirmer, while the only way you could get Richardson's reconstruction is parsing it "Geoffrey de Say, filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife", making Agnes teh motehr of the confirmer. The difference makes Agnes either the [step?] mother of William (which is entirely inconsistent with this William being the son of 'widow Hawise de Clare' as in Richardson's reconstruction), or that same William's grandmother.

As usual, with its presentation as bold fact without discussion other than to say 'I am right and CP is wrong', and the burying of the critical references in a forest of irrelevant ones, it nearly impossible to determine the underlying thought process behind this novel reconstruction, let alone to pass judgment on it.

taf

[pj.ev...@gmail.com]

And this is where I pull my copy of Altschul and check for Hawise de Clare and any Says. (None appear.)
Genealogical tables are here: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/69429

[Johnny Brananas]

"Walkelin [Magminot/ Maminot] was apparently dead in 3 Ric. I, when the scutage of Wales due from his estate was paid by his heir, and it is suggested that he left no issue, but was succeeded by one or more of his brothers, who also died childless, until at last his barony passed to the husband of his sister Alice. Geoffrey de Say, son of the Geoffrey of this roll, in confirming grants to Beigham, [Kent,] speaks of the gift which his father Geoffrey de Say and his mother Aliz had made: and in the elder Geoffrey's own grant Walkelin Maminot is described as his “antecessor," a word which at this period means simply predecessor in title.
By the end of Richard's reign Geoffrey de Say had succeeded to the responsibilities of his wife's inheritance, the following entry appearing in the Pipe Roll for the ninth year under Kent 'Galfr' de Say debet roli. ios. de scutagio heredum Walkelini Maminot quorum heres est.' Whether in fact he succeeded to the estate of joint heirs or to the debts of successive heirs does not at present appear.
Part of the Say fief in Bucks. was thus certainly derived through the Maminot alliance, but this does not account for the whole of it. Sawbridgeworth in Herts. came to him, for in the 2nd year of John he owes seven marks to have lands which had been Earl William's; and in 1212 he is returned as holding Sabrithteswurth in chief, pertaining to the honour of Earl William de Mandevill. The fief may of course have grown after the time of Geoffrey."

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015039477511&view=1up&seq=229&q1=%22by%20one%20or%20more%20of%20his%20brothers%22

[Johnny Brananas]

Forgive the lack of punctuation; this whole chunk was cut and pasted from the Hathi Trust sidebar (from Farrer's _Honors and Knights' Fees_, 3:318-19).

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015032992151&view=1up&seq=334&q1=%22geoffrey%20and%20alice%22%20say

The Chronicle of Sibton omits mention of Sarra and her issue; and worse still, it does not mention the heir who succeeded to the Sussex portion of this fee. This was Alice daughter (?) and heir of John de Chesney, who married first Hugh de Periers, who died at the end of 1175,35 and secondly Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;. In 1180 Geoffrey; and Alice;, holding the manor of Ditton Priors, Salop, in dower by the endowment of Hugh de Periers to the said Alice, delivered it to the prior of Wenlock charged with an annuity to Alice.36 Geoffrey de Say;, with the consent of Alice his wife and William his son and heir, and for the health of his lord Henry II, gave the advowson and church of Bradfield, Norf., to Walden priory.37 Geoffrey de Say; confirmed to Coxford the gifts of William de Chesney and John his nephew, and also gave the church of St. Margaret at Thorpe by (South) Repps for the souls of his wife Alice, his father William, and others of his kindred.38 On New Year's Day, 1198 or 1199, Geoffrey de Sai and Geoffrey son of the same Geoffrey; and Alice; (Aeliza) de Chesney, for the souls of the said Alice de Chesney, William her son and William earl of Mandevill, gave to the hospital at Drincourt a church and land in the same district.39 Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;, made a feoffment of land in Edmonton, Midd., towards the end of the 12th century; as Geoffrey de Say;, son of Alice de Chesney, he made another feoff- ment of land there.40 Geoffrey; and Alice; gave the church of West Greenwich, Kent, to the abbey of Beigham.41 Within the period 1196-1198 Geoffrey son of William de Say; gave to Geoffrey his son the manor of Ridding, Essex.42 Geoffrey de Say; was surety in n94 with earl Roger Bigod and William de Warenne (of Wormegay) for Robert de Mortemer (of Attleborough) that Robert would make his peace with the king, through the mediation of the primate, for having tourneyed without licence.43 In August 1214 Geoffrey son and heir of Geoffrey de Sai made fine with the king for his father's lands in the counties of Hertford, Buckingham, Sussex, Middlesex and Northampton ; 44 he gave 400 marks; for; this; fine; to; include; the; manor; of Rickling; given to him by his said father.45 In 1223 he was preparing to go on pilgrimage to Santiago.46 He died beyond seas on 19 August, 1230; when William his son and heir succeeded,47 and in 1237 conceded the right of William earl Warenne to the fishery of Hamsey (Hammes) and withdrew his claim to chase venison in certain of the earl's woods in Sussex.48 About the same date William confirmed to the Templars their manor of Saddlescombe, which Geoffrey his grandfather had given in exchange for his earlier gift of the manor of East Green- wich.49

[Johnny Brananas]

> The Chronicle of Sibton omits mention of Sarra and her issue; and worse still, it does not mention the heir who succeeded to the Sussex portion of this fee. This was Alice daughter (?) and heir of John de Chesney, who married first Hugh de Periers, who died at the end of 1175,35 and secondly Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;. In 1180 Geoffrey; and Alice;, holding the manor of Ditton Priors, Salop, in dower by the endowment of Hugh de Periers to the said Alice, delivered it to the prior of Wenlock charged with an annuity to Alice.36 Geoffrey de Say;, with the consent of Alice his wife and William his son and heir, and for the health of his lord Henry II, gave the advowson and church of Bradfield, Norf., to Walden priory.37 Geoffrey de Say; confirmed to Coxford the gifts of William de Chesney and John his nephew, and also gave the church of St. Margaret at Thorpe by (South) Repps for the souls of his wife Alice, his father William, and others of his kindred.38 On New Year's Day, 1198 or 1199, Geoffrey de Sai and Geoffrey son of the same Geoffrey; and Alice; (Aeliza) de Chesney, for the souls of the said Alice de Chesney, William her son and William earl of Mandevill, gave to the hospital at Drincourt a church and land in the same district.39 Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;, made a feoffment of land in Edmonton, Midd., towards the end of the 12th century; as Geoffrey de Say;, son of Alice de Chesney, he made another feoff- ment of land there.40 Geoffrey; and Alice; gave the church of West Greenwich, Kent, to the abbey of Beigham.41 Within the period 1196-1198 Geoffrey son of William de Say; gave to Geoffrey his son the manor of Ridding, Essex.42 Geoffrey de Say; was surety in n94 with earl Roger Bigod and William de Warenne (of Wormegay) for Robert de Mortemer (of Attleborough) that Robert would make his peace with the king, through the mediation of the primate, for having tourneyed without licence.43 In August 1214 Geoffrey son and heir of Geoffrey de Sai made fine with the king for his father's lands in the counties of Hertford, Buckingham, Sussex, Middlesex and Northampton ; 44 he gave 400 marks; for; this; fine; to; include; the; manor; of Rickling; given to him by his said father.45 In 1223 he was preparing to go on pilgrimage to Santiago.46 He died beyond seas on 19 August, 1230; when William his son and heir succeeded,47 and in 1237 conceded the right of William earl Warenne to the fishery of Hamsey (Hammes) and withdrew his claim to chase venison in certain of the earl's woods in Sussex.48 About the same date William confirmed to the Templars their manor of Saddlescombe, which Geoffrey his grandfather had given in exchange for his earlier gift of the manor of East Green- wich.49

De Caisneto, Johannes
Son of Ralph II de Chesney and Emma Maminot, tenants of Warenne in Sussex. Active in the 1140s. He married Sibil and had issue three sons, Robert, Drogo, and John, who all d.s.p., and three daughters, including Alice, wife first of Hugh de Periers (d. 1175), and then of Geoffrey de Say, and Emma, wife of Michael Belet.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Domesday_Descendants/5HFLEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22hugh+de+periers%22+alice&pg=PA368&printsec=frontcover

[Johnny Brananas]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Genealogist/myI9AQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22hugh+de+periers%22+alice&pg=PA183&printsec=frontcover

[Nathan Murphy]

> Never looked at the Say portion. I was unsatisfied over the identification of the Cheyne who was father-in-law of Towne.
>
> taf

It fell to me in the hereditary society to investigate the alleged Cheyne-Town link. Watch for a forthcoming article in TAG that presents what several interested parties found. There are several charts and graphics needed to explain the evidence, making this newsgroup an unwieldy place to try to present it, but here's a teaser.

We found some evidence that suggests the Town-Sondes-Bettenham family inherited Salerne lands, which led us to conclude that Thomas Town's wife Joan fits as William and Eleanor (Salerne) Cheyne's daughter.

Also, we dug through MSS collections of Thomas and Joan Town's great-great-great-great grandson antiquarian Sir Edward Dering, 1st Baronet (1598-1644). Dering was only able to conclude that “Johanna F[ilia] Will[elm]i vel Ric[ard]i Cheney de Shapeia” (Joan was the daughter of William or Richard Cheney of Sheppey); source: U350/Z34, Kent Record Office. We're not sure at what point in his research he drew this conclusion, or if this was his final conclusion.

The stain-glassed window at Nettlestead church in Kent is further analyzed, as well as a probable connection to John Warner, of Foots Cray, Kent, Esq., MP (d. 1460), whose bio appears in the latest HoP series. Theories about the shared ancestry of Warner's two wives through the Cralles, resulting in the need for a papal dispensation, will also be discussed.

No contemporary record was found that directly identifies the parents of Joan wife of Thomas Town. We'll have to leave it up to readers to analyze the findings and draw their own conclusions about her identity.

Nathan

[JBrand]

Cool! Sounds interesting ...

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 6:00:11 PM UTC-8, nathan...@gmail.com wrote:

> We found some evidence that suggests the Town-Sondes-Bettenham family inherited Salerne lands, which led us to conclude that Thomas Town's wife Joan fits as William and Eleanor (Salerne) Cheyne's daughter.
>

This would seemingly match the uncorrected Sondes pedigree in the Kent Visitation.

If you don't mind, would you please clarify something. Obviously, this differs from the Towne/Cheyne line as we have been discussiing it, going through Richard Cheyne back to the Cheyne/Say marriage. Does this William also descend from Alexander, or would your conclusion throw a monkey wrench in the whole claim of an Epps royal line (or at least this avenue for one)? I am not asking for specific details at this point, just big picture - to be blunt, the whole question of the Say descent looks to be a quagmire, and it loses a level of immediacy if there is no connection to the Epps immigrants (though if Mr. Richardson's account is accurate, I have a Say descend from a different immigrant anyhow, so I may be stuck with it). I do understand if you would prefer not to answer until after publication.

Thanks, taf

[Nathan Murphy]

> If you don't mind, would you please clarify something. Obviously, this differs from the Towne/Cheyne line as we have been discussiing it, going through Richard Cheyne back to the Cheyne/Say marriage. Does this William also descend from Alexander, or would your conclusion throw a monkey wrench in the whole claim of an Epps royal line (or at least this avenue for one)? I am not asking for specific details at this point, just big picture - to be blunt, the whole question of the Say descent looks to be a quagmire, and it loses a level of immediacy if there is no connection to the Epps immigrants (though if Mr. Richardson's account is accurate, I have a Say descend from a different immigrant anyhow, so I may be stuck with it). I do understand if you would prefer not to answer until after publication.
>
> Thanks, taf

William Cheyne was Richard Cheyne's son, so the proposed Epps royal descent would still be going through the Cheyne/Say lineage. The 1566 Vis. of Bedfordshire (HSP 21:15) offers a third alternative for Joan's father, "John Cheyney of the Isle of Sheppey in Kent." The only John of Sheppey I've found was also Richard Cheyne's son (CIPM 25:28-29). He witnessed another person's IPM, which is the only record I've found of John. John died sometime between 1413 and 1437.

Please continue the Say research. I'd love to see what you all find.

Nathan

P.S. Nathaniel Taylor is now in the role of approving genealogist for several of the royal hereditary societies in the USA. I've needed to bow out to work on another project, i.e. the Great Migration Study Project through NEHGS.

[JBrand]

Nathan, interesting about your new work for NEHGS. I assume this means you have joined Ian Watson, who produced the first vol. of the new series. Since that will undoubtedly be a huge job, it is probably good to have two working on it.

I've been hit and miss on the Say end, just noticing new things and throwing quotes to see what sticks. I did get a chance, yesterday, to briefly scan the Pyel cartulary (? or letters) that Doug Richardson cited in his rearrangement of the Say line to include a Clare marriage. The record does appear to say something about "Geoffrey de Say and Hawisia de Clare" granting some land in the appropriate time period. I only got the briefest look before the announcement came on to vacate the library building, but I'll look again tomorrow and try to post the whole grant (or deed/ charter?).

[JBrand]

102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger , the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover

[JBrand]

> 102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover

"Another question arose in 1220, when William and Joan claimed against Ralf de Clare--who had married Joan's sister, Margaret. The subject under dispute was the village of Greatham in Hampshire, which had descended from Philip de Caisneto to Bartholomew de Chesnaye, and from him to his daughter Isabel, who was the mother of Joan Aguillon. Ralf de Clare said that two-thirds of the village was held by his mother in dower, and he denied Joan's right to any part ..."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Addington/BwohAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&dq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&printsec=frontcover

Joan and Margaret were apparently Aguillons, whose mother was a de Caisneto or Chesney.

[taf]

For the lands held by the branch of interest:

IPM of William de Sey, writ 12 Feb 56 Hen III [1271/2]
heir William de Say, aged either 18 or 19 on the feast of St Edmund the King. [20 Nov - another inquisition reported that the age of the heir was not known, but that he was in utero when the king went to Gascony, so 1253]

Norfolk: Strattun (manor), held of the earl of Gloucester,
Kent: Burgham manor, held of the king
Codham manor and advowson, held of the king
Westgernewich manor, held of the king
Berling als. Berlinges manor, held of the king
Sussex: Strete manor and advowson, tenure unspecified
Hammes manor and advowson, tenure unspecified
Hertford: Sabritteswrth manor (part), tenure unspecified
Cambridge: Lintone manor, held of the earl of Hereford
Middlesex: Edelmeton manor, held of the king

CIPM, Hen III #813, pp. 281-282

[taf]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 4:53:36 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:

> "Another question arose in 1220, when William and Joan claimed against Ralf de Clare--who had married Joan's sister, Margaret. The subject under dispute was the village of Greatham in Hampshire, which had descended from Philip de Caisneto to Bartholomew de Chesnaye, and from him to his daughter Isabel, who was the mother of Joan Aguillon. Ralf de Clare said that two-thirds of the village was held by his mother in dower, and he denied Joan's right to any part ..."
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Addington/BwohAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&dq=greatham+%22de+clare%22&printsec=frontcover
>
> Joan and Margaret were apparently Aguillons, whose mother was a de Caisneto or Chesney.

No. They were FitzAylwin; The William here is William Aguillon, and Joan was his wife. Most sources I am finding represent Margaret's husband as Roger de Clere, rather than Clare. No Say relevance here.
https://books.google.com/books?id=BrpCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA45 (with summary chart on next page)

taf

[taf]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 3:38:15 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:

> 102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger , the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover

IPM of WIlliam le Rus, (CIPM Hen III, #282), 7 June 37 Hen III.
Norfolk: Stintune manor with advowson of Salle and Heydon, held of Sir ROger de Clere, Roger having sold the same to the said William . . . and the said Roger held it of Sir William de Say by service of 1 knights fee.
and again, #462, 41 Hen III
Norfolk: Stinton manor, held of William de Say

And while we are at it
IPM of John le Blund (CIPM Hen III, #571) 48 Hen III
Middlesex: Edelmeton, manor, held of William de Say in chief, 1/4 knight's fee.

taf

[taf]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:47:34 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with
> the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was
> the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the Magna Carta surety.
> Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held
> Rickling, Essex,

Ancient Deeds, vol. 2, #2287 p. 503

Confirmation by Geoffrey de Say, son of Geoffrey, son of William de Say, of a grant made by his said father to Geoffrey de Say, his own brother, whom his father had by Alice de Ver, on the petition of WIlliam de Say, his eldest brother, of the manor of Rickeling. [witnesses . . . ] date est. betw. 10 August 1197 and 8 March 1198

Ancient Deeds, vol 3, #3100, p. 338

Grant by Geoffrey de Say son of William de Say to Geoffrey de Say, his son, of the manor of Rikeling [witnesses . . . ] date est. 1196-1198 {but obviously before the above confirmation of it}

taf

[taf]

CFR Edw I

12 May 1273, Westminster (p. 5)
Order to the same to restore to Robert de Ufford and Mary his wife, late the wife of William de Say, deceased, tenant in chief, the lands which Mary held in dower of the inheritance of William ; Robert having made fine in 100 marks for the said marriage.

5 Oct 1296, Durham (p. 378)
"Order to the same to deliver to William de Cheny, son and heir of Alexander de Cheny, for good service in Gascony, the manor of Patrikesburm and other lands late of his said father, lie having done fealty ; the escheator having found by inquisition that Alexander held nothing in chief but held divers lands of the heir of William de Say, a minor in the king’s ward, and of the abbot of Westminster by divers services, and the king having granted the premises to the said William de Cheny, notwithstanding that it has been found among the memoranda of the Exchequer that the said manor, whereof William de Say enfeoffed Alexander and Agnes his wife to hold to them and their heirs by the service of a pair of gilt spurs or 6d. a year, doing service at the ward of Rochester castle, is of the barony of Say, which is held in chief, and that the said feoffment was made without licence."

Fine Rolls of Henry III
14 Henry III (20 September 1230)
456. For William de Say. Upon the death of Geoffrey de Say, the king took the homage of William de Say, his son and heir, for all that Geoffrey held of the king in chief, and William has [given the king surety by ...] de Cliff’ for his relief as much as pertains to the aforesaid lands. Order to the sheriff of Bedfordshire to cause William to have full seisin of all lands that Geoffrey held in chief, of which he was seised [on the day he died ...] St. Bartholomew in the fourteenth year, nonetheless taking an inquisition as to how much land Geoffrey held in chief of the king and by what [service ... and what William] owes him for his relief. Witness as above.
457 For William de Say. It is written in the same manner to the sheriffs of Kent, Middlesex and Herefordshire .

Close Rolls, Henry I, vol 1, p. 414 (1230)
"De respectu habendo.—Mandatum est baronibus de Scaccario quod demandam quam faciunt Galfrido de Say; de debitis que exiguntur ab eo per summonicionem Scaccarii de prestito Hybernie, ponant in respectum quamdiu idem Galfridus fuerit in servicio domini regis cum in partibus transmarinis. Teste rey apud Nonetas, xvj de Junii."
[Geoffrey de Say is overseas for the king]

Close Rolls, Henry I, vol 1, pp. 431-2
"Pro Willelmo de Say;.--Rex cancellario suo et S. de Segrave salutem. Sciatis quod, mortuo nuper in partibus transmarinis Galfrido de Say;, cepimus homagiumn Willelmi de Say, filii et heredis predicti Galfridi, de omnibus terris quas ipse Galfridus de nobis tenuit in capite et idem Willelmus securos nos fecit per dilectos et fideles nostros G. comitem Glouc et Rogerum de Clifford;' de relevio suo, qnantum pertinet ad terras predictas. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod de omnibus terris quas predictus Galfridus de nobis tenuit in capite et de quibus fuit saisitus die quo obiit, videlicet, die Lune proxima ante festum Sancti Bartholomei anno regni nostri xiiij, eidem Willelmo plenam saisinam habere faciatis. Nichilominus tamen inquisitionem fieri faciatis quantum terre idem Gaifridus tenuerit de nobis in capite et per quod servicium, ut sic nobis constare possit quantum predictus Willelmus debeat pro relevio. Teste ut supra."
[Geoffrey died overseas, the Monday before St. Bartholomew's Day, 14 Henry III, (if I did the calculation right, this is 19 August 1230) and the king received homage from his son and heir William; inquisition ordered to determine extent of inheritance so correct relief can be determined.]

[Johnny Brananas]

Okay, so FitzAylwin, not Aguillon, but Joan married into Aguillon.

I posted this to try to figure out if this was the same "Ralph de Clare" in the below ...

"Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ..."

However, you say it's more likely "de Clere," which I take to be different from the commital "de Clare" family.

Although, as Isabel was a Chesney/ Chesnay, I guess there was already some non-agnate connection there.

[taf]

This doesn't look like a productive avenue to me. Whether Clare or Clere, the man's daughter was holding Edmonton as a Say vassal, which need not imply any genealogical connection.

taf

[Johnny Brananas]

Anyone care to translate the following ...?

(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]

Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.


(from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]

Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.

Relevant index entries seem to be ...

Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de

Clare, Alice wife of Roger de

Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes

Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de

[Johnny Brananas]

S.J. O'Connor, ed., _A Calendar of the Cartularies of John Pyel and Adam Fraunceys_, Camden 5th series, vol. 2 (1993), p. 240, no. 271:

271 Charter of William, son of Geoffrey de Say, and Avice (_Awisia_) [fn. 1: MS. Aelesia.] de Clare with warranty [fn. 2: MS: without warranty.] and date made to John son of John Marsh (_de Mareys_), of the croft called 'Rammescroft' and of 3 perches of meadow in Edmonton lying in 'Middelmerssh' and pertaining to the said croft, to be held of William for 12d _pa_ for all service. And the grantee paid 60s in fine.
Witnesses: Aunfrey de Fhering', seneschal, Stephen de Dunmowe, bailifff, John Blund, William de la Forde, Thomas Picot, Richard Harulf, Peter de la Berewe, Richard de Gysors, Nicholas Marsh, Geoffrey his brother, William son of Geoffrey, Laurence de la Forde.
[Date: 1230 x 1272]
[WAM 261]

There are many other "de Say" entries relating to Edmonton.

[JBrand]

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 3:56:25 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:

The indexing is probably wrong on these relationships.

This source below seems to explicitly state that Alice (Dammartin), wife of Roger de Clare, was the daughter of Margery, widow of Dammartin, divorced wife of Geoffrey de Say.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Victoria_History_of_the_County_of_Su/0Jw4AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+say%22+%22roger+de+clare%22&pg=PA321&printsec=frontcover

[taf]

A summary - Roger de Clare and Alice his wife are suing Margery la Ferte for the despoilment and partial sale of Alice's inheritance in Ethingham. Margery defends herself saying that all of the despoilment happened during her marriage to Geoffrey de Say, and that she has improved the property since her divorce from him, and that further, she was under no restriction on performing the claimed actions anyhow. [The next part is a bit wonky - there is something I am not getting, so I will leave it vague] She then refers to 'the father Odo de Dammartin, her first husband'. Since no claim was made that she personally committed the wastage in her widowhood and it is agreed the majority was carried out by her second husband, Geoffrey de Say, Roger and Alice don't have a complaint against her. Margery is prohibitted from wastage.

The people involved here are Margery Briwere, wife successively of Eudes (Otes) de Dammartin, Geoffrey de Say (div) and William la Ferte, and mother (or maybe step-mother) of Alice de Dammartin, wife of Roger de Clare.

taf

[JBrand]

Is Margery saying Dammartin was specifically "first husband," with Geoffrey de Say was her "second husband"?

Some sources seem to be stating her "de la Ferte" or "de Feritate" husband was prior to Odo/ Eudo Dammartin, so that could be a discrepancy.

"William de la Ferte of Marden and Lavington, Wiltshire, and Alphington, Devon, married Margaret one of the sisters and coheirs of William Briwere, and died in 1216, when Pain de Chaworth had seisin of the lands of William de la Ferte which belonged to his wife by hereditary right, she being Gundred daughter and heir of William de la Ferte and Margaret Briwere."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Early_Yorkshire_Charters_Volume_6_The_Pa/uTwHG7akovwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22the+lands+of+William+de+la+Ferte+which+belonged+to+his%22&pg=PA54&printsec=frontcover

Assuming Gundred de la Ferte and Alice de Dammartin both married quite young (14-16), I guess Margaret / Margery could be the mother of both of them ...

[Peter Stewart]

On 06-Jan-23 11:12 AM, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
>> Anyone care to translate the following ...?
>>
>> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>>
>> Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
>>
>>
>> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>>
>> Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
>> Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
>>
>> Relevant index entries seem to be ...
>>
>> Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
>>
>> Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
>>
>> Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
>>
>> Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de
>
> A summary - Roger de Clare and Alice his wife are suing Margery la Ferte for the despoilment and partial sale of Alice's inheritance in Ethingham. Margery defends herself saying that all of the despoilment happened during her marriage to Geoffrey de Say, and that she has improved the property since her divorce from him, and that further, she was under no restriction on performing the claimed actions anyhow. [The next part is a bit wonky - there is something I am not getting, so I will leave it vague] She then refers to 'the father Odo de Dammartin, her first husband'.

"Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua ... Et Margeria dicit

quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri

sui" - Margery forcefully defended that she had never in her widowhood
made wastage, sale or destruction, and Roger and Alice had not brought
forward an adequate suit against her on this score. The heronry had been
destroyed by the father of her first husband Odo de Dammartin.

Peter Stewart


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[taf]

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:12:58 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > > Anyone care to translate the following ...?
> > >
> > > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> > >
> > > Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
> > >
> > >
> > > (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
> > >
> > > Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
> > > Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
> > >
> > > Relevant index entries seem to be ...
> > >
> > > Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
> > >
> > > Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
> > >
> > > Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
> > >
> > > Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de
> > A summary - Roger de Clare and Alice his wife are suing Margery la Ferte for the despoilment and partial sale of Alice's inheritance in Ethingham. Margery defends herself saying that all of the despoilment happened during her marriage to Geoffrey de Say, and that she has improved the property since her divorce from him, and that further, she was under no restriction on performing the claimed actions anyhow. [The next part is a bit wonky - there is something I am not getting, so I will leave it vague] She then refers to 'the father Odo de Dammartin, her first husband'. Since no claim was made that she personally committed the wastage in her widowhood and it is agreed the majority was carried out by her second husband, Geoffrey de Say, Roger and Alice don't have a complaint against her. Margery is prohibitted from wastage.
> >
> > The people involved here are Margery Briwere, wife successively of Eudes (Otes) de Dammartin, Geoffrey de Say (div) and William la Ferte, and mother (or maybe step-mother) of Alice de Dammartin, wife of Roger de Clare.
> >
> > taf
> Is Margery saying Dammartin was specifically "first husband," with Geoffrey de Say was her "second husband"?

Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui - Odo Dammartin, her first husband; Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui - Geoffrey de Say, her second husband

> Some sources seem to be stating her "de la Ferte" or "de Feritate" husband was prior to Odo/ Eudo Dammartin, so that could be a discrepancy.

Most do, in fact. Figures the one I pick at random from a Google search happens to have it wrong in a way that matches the text. Probably a scribal slip, an incorrect assumption based on the only two known to the scribe being Eudo and Geoffrey in that order.

> "William de la Ferte of Marden and Lavington, Wiltshire, and Alphington, Devon, married Margaret one of the sisters and coheirs of William Briwere, and died in 1216, when Pain de Chaworth had seisin of the lands of William de la Ferte which belonged to his wife by hereditary right, she being Gundred daughter and heir of William de la Ferte and Margaret Briwere."
>

I am seeing broad agreement that the Ferte marriage came first. The other question is who the Geoffrey was. THere was general agreement until the oft-referenced author simply declared it was a different one.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On 06-Jan-23 1:58 PM, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 7:12:58 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
>>>> Anyone care to translate the following ...?
>>>>
>>>> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:327 [Roll 109, no. 1526, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>>>>
>>>> Surr'. Rogerus de Clare et Alicia uxor ejus ponunt loco suo Galfridum Herbaud vel Alan de Suwud versus Margeriam de la Ferte de placito vasti.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (from _Curia Regis Rolls_, 14:332-33 [Roll 109, no. 1555, trinity term 15 Hen. III, 1231]
>>>>
>>>> Surr'. Margeria de Feritate atachiata fuit ad respondendum Rogero de Clar' et Alicie uxori ejus de placito quare fecit vastum et venditionem et exilium de terris domibus boscis et hominibus, quos habet in dotem de hereditate ipsius Alicie in Ethingeham', ad exheredationem ipsius Alicie, et unde ipsi Rogerus et Alicia queruntur quod per vastum et venditionem et exilium illud terra illa destructa est, quia ipsa boscum vendidit et homines destruxit ad valentiam ccc. marcarum, et preterea quod quandam heroneram destruxit.
>>>> Et Margeria venit et defendit quod nullam fecit destructionem nec vastum secundum quod predictum est. Set revera quando ipsa fuit sub potestate Galfridi de Say viri sui, dum idem Galfridus fuit vir suus, ipse inde vendidit et dedit sine querela quam [ipsi] inde fecissent. Et ipsa revera postquam celebratum fuit divortium [et matrimonium solutum] inter ipsam et predictum Galfridum, fecit ipsa domos et edificia in terra illa, per que terra illa multum meliorata est. Et preterea petit judicium desicut nunquam inde habuit prohibitionem et continetur in brevi quod habuit prohibitionem. Et bene defendit quod nunquam in viduitate sua fecit vastum venditionem vel exilium; et ipsi Rogerus et Alicia nullam sectam sufficientem producunt quod in viduitate sua fecit vastum vel exilium, nec aliquid certum exprimunt. Et Margeria dicit quod heironera destructa fuit per patrem Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui. Et quia predicta secta nichil certum dixit quod vastum predicta Margeria fecerit in viduitate sua nec quod vastum factum fuit ante viduitatem suam nec, si aliquod vastum factum fuit in viduitate sua, in quibus rebus vel quale factum sit, et preterea quia predictus Rogerus de Clar' et Alicia uxor ejus non dedicunt quin vastum illud, si aliquod ibi factum fuit, factum esset temporibus Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui, consideratum est quod ipsa Margeria sit inde quieta et Rogerus in misericordia. Et prohibitum est Margerie quod, quicquid a retro actum sit, quod de cetero vastum non faciat nee destructionem. Dies datus est eis de audiendo judicio suo a die sancti Michaelis in xv. dies. Et Margeria ponit loco suo Pentecosten Clericum.
>>>>
>>>> Relevant index entries seem to be ...
>>>>
>>>> Ferte, la, Feritate, Margery de
>>>>
>>>> Clare, Alice wife of Roger de
>>>>
>>>> Dammartin, Daimmartin, Alice (de Clare, de Say) wife of Otes
>>>>
>>>> Say, Alice (de Clare, Dammartin) wife of Geoffrey de
>>> A summary - Roger de Clare and Alice his wife are suing Margery la Ferte for the despoilment and partial sale of Alice's inheritance in Ethingham. Margery defends herself saying that all of the despoilment happened during her marriage to Geoffrey de Say, and that she has improved the property since her divorce from him, and that further, she was under no restriction on performing the claimed actions anyhow. [The next part is a bit wonky - there is something I am not getting, so I will leave it vague] She then refers to 'the father Odo de Dammartin, her first husband'. Since no claim was made that she personally committed the wastage in her widowhood and it is agreed the majority was carried out by her second husband, Geoffrey de Say, Roger and Alice don't have a complaint against her. Margery is prohibitted from wastage.
>>>
>>> The people involved here are Margery Briwere, wife successively of Eudes (Otes) de Dammartin, Geoffrey de Say (div) and William la Ferte, and mother (or maybe step-mother) of Alice de Dammartin, wife of Roger de Clare.
>>>
>>> taf
>> Is Margery saying Dammartin was specifically "first husband," with Geoffrey de Say was her "second husband"?
>
> Odonis Dammartin primi viri sui - Odo Dammartin, her first husband; Galfridi de Say secundi viri sui - Geoffrey de Say, her second husband
>
>> Some sources seem to be stating her "de la Ferte" or "de Feritate" husband was prior to Odo/ Eudo Dammartin, so that could be a discrepancy.
>
> Most do, in fact. Figures the one I pick at random from a Google search happens to have it wrong in a way that matches the text. Probably a scribal slip, an incorrect assumption based on the only two known to the scribe being Eudo and Geoffrey in that order.

This seems plausible to me - if she referred to Odo de Dammartin as her
"prior" husband this could have been taken to mean "first" instead of
"former".

If court clerks had been diligent genealogists we would have much less
to do.

[taf]

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:44:52 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> The heronry had been
> destroyed by the father of her first husband Odo de Dammartin.

'Heronry', just like it looks. Thanks for that.

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, . . . . However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent.

Actually, it doesn't. Alice de Cheney _was_ the Maminot heiress:

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/say.shtml

taf

[taf]

On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 12:56:25 PM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

Another rendering of this is found in Bracton's Note Book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=iAUKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA445

taf

[Johnny Brananas]

This chart in CP agrees that Alice Chesnay/ Chesney, widow of Hugh Periers (d. ca. 1175), was wife of the Geoffrey de Say who died 1214 and mother of the one who died in 1230. The last Geoffrey had a brother William who died young, s.p., and before the turn of the century, as well as a half-brother Geoffrey from his father's second marriage to Alice de Vere.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Complete_Peerage_of_England_Scotland/r0tmAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hawise+de+saye&pg=PA116-IA3&printsec=frontcover

[Johnny Brananas]

Who was Alice de Vere? Could she have remarried to a de Clare after 1214?

[Johnny Brananas]

[1244.] Acknowledgment by Aaron, son of Abraham, that Geoffrey de Sey, of Rikelinges, son of Alice de Vere, and his heirs are quit as to him and his heirs of all debts, &c., from the creation of the world to Michaelmas in the 28th year.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Plea_Rolls_of_the_Excheq/40xAAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22alice+de+vere%22+say&pg=PA63&printsec=frontcover

[taf]

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:21:56 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> This chart in CP agrees that Alice Chesnay/ Chesney, widow of Hugh Periers (d. ca. 1175), was wife of the Geoffrey de Say who died 1214 and mother of the one who died in 1230. The last Geoffrey had a brother William who died young, s.p., and before the turn of the century, as well as a half-brother Geoffrey from his father's second marriage to Alice de Vere.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Complete_Peerage_of_England_Scotland/r0tmAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hawise+de+saye&pg=PA116-IA3&printsec=frontcover

A further demonstration of what a lot of people fail to appreciate. The 2nd edition of CP is not a monolyth, it is a group project, with different contributors expanding on the original framework laid out by Cokayne, produced spanning 4 decades. As such, it shouldn't surprise that there are instances of internal disagreement, just as with ODNB, HOP, etc. The correction page I mentioned refers directly to this conflicting information between the chart accompanying the Essex article and the Say article.

taf

[taf]

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:44:58 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> [1244.] Acknowledgment by Aaron, son of Abraham, that Geoffrey de Sey, of Rikelinges, son of Alice de Vere, and his heirs are quit as to him and his heirs of all debts, &c., from the creation of the world to Michaelmas in the 28th year.
>

Ancient Deeds 6:307 #C6150 (no date, because of that would be too helpful)
"Grant by John Purchaz of Rikelinges to Dame Amice de Sey late the wife of Sir Geoffrey de Sey, for her service and for 40s., which she has given him beforehand, of 1½ acres of his grove in the town of Rikelinges ; rent, ld. at Easter. Witnesses :—Sir Fulk de Bath, knight, John de Pinchpol, Robert Flambard, and others (named).

And later,

Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
"Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."

taf

[Johnny Brananas]

from _Curia Regis Rolls_ ...

Michaelmas term, 34-35 Henry III (1250)

1739 Surrey'. Willelmus de Sey et Sibilla uxor ejus pecierunt die Jovis proxima post festum sancti Martini terram suam per plevinam que capta fuit in manum domini regis per defaltam quam fecerunt versus Gladusam de Mortuo Mari; et habent.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Curia_Regis_Rolls_Preserved_in_the_Publi/DnC22L4R6gsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+sey%22+surrey&pg=PA300&printsec=frontcover

[taf]

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 7:44:58 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> [1244.] Acknowledgment by Aaron, son of Abraham, that Geoffrey de Sey, of Rikelinges, son of Alice de Vere, and his heirs are quit as to him and his heirs of all debts, &c., from the creation of the world to Michaelmas in the 28th year.
>

TNA E 210/369
Bond by Geoffrey de Say, brother of William de Say, to Aaron son of Abraham, the Jew, for 30l. a moiety to be paid at the quinzaine of Michaelmas next, and the other moiety at the same term next following: 14 October, 30 Hen III (1246)

In spite of interacting with the same counterpart, these Geoffreys are different, uncle and nephew. The former is the one I called Geoffrey IIB. the latter is certainly brother of the WIlliam who married Sibyl and Mary, and thus a younger son of Geoffrey IIA.

taf

[taf]

On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:30:56 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> Ancient Deeds 2:521, #C2447
> "Confirmation by John de Say, knight, of a grant (recited), by Sir Robert de Say, clerk, son of Sir Geoffrey de Say, to Adam le Charman, of Rikeling, of a messuage with land in Rikeling, in a field called "Pichardescroft' by the street leading to Rikelingegrene, abutting on a field called 'Bederepe,' and other land in a field called Westleye.' Denham, Tuesday before St. Gregory the Pope, 26 [Edward I.]. Injured."
>

TNA C 146/10501
"Quitclaim by Sir John de Say, knight to Humphrey de Waledeneconcerning manor of Rickling [Essex] and of rent due from Sir Robert de Say, Sir John's brother. after 22 Edw I" [after 1294]

[taf]

Continuing along this line, Farrer wrote the following in his Feudal Cambridgeshire, which extracted, unfortunately without citation, a swath of feudal records and presented them parish by parish, year by year.

Chilford Hundred
Castle Camps and Shudy Camps with Bartlow, Nosterfield and Olmstead
1279 . . . Matilda de Crec, daughter of Geoffrey de Say, holds a messuage in Nosterfeld of the honor of Richmond in free marriage by the gift of the said Geoffrey, and his mother had that tenement by the gift of Robert de Ver, her brother, now 60 years past; the nuns of Hengham have 12 a. by the gift of Alice de Say, sister of Robert de Ver, earl of Oxford, 50 years past, in alms of her marriage.

We next turn to Denham Parish Registers, 1539-1850, With Historical Notes and Notices, pp. 180-1
[translation from reports of commissioners appointed in the first year of Edward I:

They say [i.e. the local jury] that John de Say miles hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred, so that they cannot do their duty in the villa of Denham ; and they say that said John and Nicholas his brother beat, wounded and ill-treated John Mauveisin, bailiff of the Hundred, who came to levy the king's due from the said John in the villa of Denham. II. 173
. . .
They say that Peter de Walpole very often (sepissime) hinders the bailiffs of the Hundred so that they cannot do their duty, by beating and ill-treating them. And the bailiffs of Badmundesfeld, the bailiffs of Lydgate, and the bailiffs of the Earl of Gloucester do not allow the bailiffs of the Hundred to do their duty as they ought and are wont to in certain estates (feodis) belonging to them. And so does John de Say in the villa of Denham. Also they say that said John de Say and Nicholas his brother beat, wounded and illtreated John Mauveysin bailiff of the Hundred, who came to collect what was due to the king in the villa of Denham. II. 196.
. . .
And from Feet of Fines.
1287. 15th year of Edward I. Margaret de Criollys versus John son of Geoffrey de Say of the manor of Denham.


This is all going to take a while . . . .

[Johnny Brananas]

Interesting how the Rickling/ Rikeling branch seems to be a bit better documented.

As far as Sybil, wife of William de Say, being a Marshal or Marshall, what do you make of these?

_Cal. Patent Rolls, ... Hen. III_, vol. 6 (1266-1272), p. 167:

[1267.] Nov. 20. Marlborough. Grant of special grace to William de Say of the marriage of John le Marescall heir of Aline la Marescall lately deceased who held in chief, or of William brother of the said John if the latter die within age; notwithstanding the king's late grant to John de Britannia the king's son, of all the issues and profits of wards and marriages falling to the king until he have received 4,000 marks wherein the king is bound to him.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Patent_Rolls_Preserved_i/Se81AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22marescall+heir+of+alina+la+marescall%22&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcover

Baker's _Northamptonshire_, 2:58:

"In Dec. 27 Hen 3, all the lands of the late John Mareschall in the counties of Norfolk, Northampton, and Somerset, were rendered to William Mareschall, his brother---not son, as stated by Dugdale and Bridges. 'In 49 Hen. 3 (1264) he took part with the rebellious Barons, and died at that time, leaving two sons, John and William, then under age; who, in 50 Hen. 3, through the mediation of William de Say obtained the King's Pardon for their Father's Transgression, and had permission to enjoy his Lands, with what other possession they had by gift of Aliva, their grandmother, or any other.' "

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Antiquities_of_the_Count/lWDZjWZA2TUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marshall+mediation+%22william+de+say%22&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover

I think the elder John Marescall or Marshal was the Earl of Pembroke.

[Johnny Brananas]

No, I guess these were Lord Marshal(l), not Pembroke, though related to Pembroke.

Looking further through the Pyel cartulary, there is only one other de Say female named, specifically "Alice, the donor's sister," i.e., William de Say's sister, mentioned in F 585, p. 298, a 1265 charter of William de Say to William Ford, or De Forde, of meadow in Edmonton "to be held in free marriage with Alice, the donor's sister." Assuming Ford or "de Forde" is the same as "de la Forde," there are quite a few mentions of this family in connection with the Says.

[taf]

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 8:13:09 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> Interesting how the Rickling/ Rikeling branch seems to be a bit better documented.

Not sure that they are - that is where I started my ongoing search, as they were easier to identify (more diverse names, straightforward spellings of places)

.
> As far as Sybil, wife of William de Say, being a Marshal or Marshall, what do you make of these?
>
> _Cal. Patent Rolls, ... Hen. III_, vol. 6 (1266-1272), p. 167:
>
> [1267.] Nov. 20. Marlborough. Grant of special grace to William de Say of the marriage of John le Marescall heir of Aline la Marescall lately deceased who held in chief, or of William brother of the said John if the latter die within age; notwithstanding the king's late grant to John de Britannia the king's son, of all the issues and profits of wards and marriages falling to the king until he have received 4,000 marks wherein the king is bound to him.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Calendar_of_the_Patent_Rolls_Preserved_i/Se81AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22marescall+heir+of+alina+la+marescall%22&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcover
>
> Baker's _Northamptonshire_, 2:58:
>
> "In Dec. 27 Hen 3, all the lands of the late John Mareschall in the counties of Norfolk, Northampton, and Somerset, were rendered to William Mareschall, his brother---not son, as stated by Dugdale and Bridges. 'In 49 Hen. 3 (1264) he took part with the rebellious Barons, and died at that time, leaving two sons, John and William, then under age; who, in 50 Hen. 3, through the mediation of William de Say obtained the King's Pardon for their Father's Transgression, and had permission to enjoy his Lands, with what other possession they had by gift of Aliva, their grandmother, or any other.' "
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_and_Antiquities_of_the_Count/lWDZjWZA2TUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=marshall+mediation+%22william+de+say%22&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover
>

From CIPM:
48 Hen III, Aline le Marscale was aged 60+ or 90+, sister and heiress of Isabel de Cressi
53 Hen III, ipm Aline Marescall, heir John, son of Sir William le Marescall, aged 12
55 Hen III, inquest determining if Alice la Maresshale had enfeoffed her deceased daughter Alice de Carhou. John, son of Sir WIlliam le Mareschal is her heir
11 Edw I, ipm John le Marscal, heir William his son, aged 5 on Feast of St Michael, 10 Edw I; or aged 5 on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross in the Autumn, 10 Edw. I.
26 Edw I, proof of age of William, son and heir of Jn, aged 21 on 6th day before feast of St Michael, 26 Ed I, born at Denham; godfather was a Walter de Say, godmother Petronilla de Say; Lady Amice de Say, "with whom the heir's mother was in company" at Denham at the time of his birth

This gives us John, ca. 1257-in or bef.1283, which puts him in the same generation as William, son of William de Say, so if this is the family from which Sibyl derived, she would be of the same generation as Sir William, father of John. Aline, if 90+, would have been born in the 1170s(+/-), or if 60+, in the 1200 decade, more or less, so at least two and maybe three generations before John.

Carthew, in his The Hundred of Launditch and Deanery of Brisley, discusses this descent.
https://books.google.com/books?id=iytSAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA71

See also CP, under Marshall. As presented there, teh line wuld involve long chronology, with a man active in 1197 (as an apparent adult, hence born in or bef. 1176) being grandfather of a man born 81 years later in 1257. This long chronology makes it very hard to deduce where Sibyl would go, assuming she even belonged to this line (which does seem to have been the case).

taf

[Johnny Brananas]

Surr':-Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=333&q1=%22de%20say%22

Surr'.—Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria de la Ferte uxor ejus per attornatum suum ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=340&q1=%22de%20say%22

K’nt.-—Isabella de Hotot per atornatum suum optulit se iiij. die versus Galfridum de Say; ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=465&q1=%22de%20say%22

Surr'.—Dies datus est Gaufrido de Say; et Margerie uxori ejus per atornatum suum ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=486&q1=%22de%20say%22

Surr'.-Galfridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus per atornatum Margerie ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=577&q1=%22de%20say%22

... warantum Margeriam de Say;: ... warantum predictam Margeriam.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=580&q1=%22de%20say%22

Also mention of Gileberto de Say and wife Matilda, and maybe others.

[Johnny Brananas]

Here is a mention of "Willelmus de Say, pater praedicti Galfridi de Say" ... looks like 22 Edward I. One of the Edwards, at least.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Munimenta_Gildhallae_Londoniensis/dPkYvlW1n34C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Willelmus+de+Say+pater+praedicti+Galfridi+de+Say%22&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcover

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 7:12:25 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> Here is a mention of "Willelmus de Say, pater praedicti Galfridi de Say" ... looks like 22 Edward I. One of the Edwards, at least.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Munimenta_Gildhallae_Londoniensis/dPkYvlW1n34C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Willelmus+de+Say+pater+praedicti+Galfridi+de+Say%22&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcover

This is the husband of Sibyl and Mary.

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 6:59:26 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> Surr':-Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus ...

> Surr'.—Gaufridus de Say; et Margeria de la Ferte uxor ejus per attornatum suum ...

> K’nt.-—Isabella de Hotot per atornatum suum optulit se iiij. die versus Galfridum de Say; ...

> Surr'.—Dies datus est Gaufrido de Say; et Margerie uxori ejus per atornatum suum ...

> Surr'.-Galfridus de Say; et Margeria uxor ejus per atornatum Margerie ...
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x030445898&view=1up&seq=577&q1=%22de%20say%22
> ... warantum Margeriam de Say;: ... warantum predictam Margeriam.

All of these seem to fall in 1225 and 1226, which is useful in narrowing down the timeframe of when this apparently-brief union was a going concern.

[Johnny Brananas]

Okay, so there was a son Geoffrey in addition to the William b. ca. 1252/3.

[taf]

There does seem to have been, but that was not my intent here. This was a mistake on my part - I meant to identify this Geoffrey as the future first Lord Say, son of William, son of the William who married Sibyl and Mary, but somehow ended up typing something completely different.

[Johnny Brananas]

Okay, makes sense.

[taf]

Picking back up after a hiatus:

Cal. Charter Rolls, 2: 52
30 Jan. 1265 Grant, at the instance of R. de Veer, earl of Oxford, to Geoffrey de Say, and his heirs, of free warren in all his demesne lands in Danhan, co. Suffolk, and Rykelinge, co. Essex.

Cal. Genealogicum 2: 517
24 Edw I
ALEXANDER DE CHENY alias CHEYNY. Ing. p. m.
Derb'. Willielmus filius prædicti Alexandri de Cheyny propinquior hæres ejus est et de ætate viginti duorum annoruin.
Hertford'. Willielmus de Say, nuper defunctus, viginti annis elapsis feoffavit dictum Alexandrum et Agnetem uxorem ejus de manerio de Patrikesburn'.
[Vide Rot. Fin., 24 Edw. I. m. 9. et m. 5.]

2:531
25 Edw I
WILLIELMUS DE HAMELTON'. Extenta terrarum quas dictus Willielmus tenet in custodia sua, de hæreditate Galfridi filii et hæredis Willielmi de Say, quem Johannes de Say vocat ad warantum versus Elizabetham quæ fuit uxor Willielmi de Say de terra quam eadem Elizabetha clamat in dotem versus eum. Hereford'

[Johnny Brananas]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > 102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover

taf, do you have a Gov. William Leete line? Someone here did, I think.

Looks like further on in this same vol. of the Hist. MSS. Comission there are a few entries pertaining to that line as given by Gary Boyd Roberts ...

"Grant by Robert de Say and Aliz de Stuteville his wife, daughter of William de Stuteville, to the monks of Stratfield, of land in Stratfield, etc. ... [undated]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22grant+by+robert+de+say+and+aliz%22&pg=PA356&printsec=frontcover

There are a few others immediately following. This was the Stratfield Say property that eventually went from the Say family to the Dabrichecourts.

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:01:41 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > > 102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover
>
> taf, do you have a Gov. William Leete line? Someone here did, I think.

Not me.

> Looks like further on in this same vol. of the Hist. MSS. Comission there are a few entries pertaining to that line as given by Gary Boyd Roberts ...
>
> "Grant by Robert de Say and Aliz de Stuteville his wife, daughter of William de Stuteville, to the monks of Stratfield, of land in Stratfield, etc. ... [undated]
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22grant+by+robert+de+say+and+aliz%22&pg=PA356&printsec=frontcover
>
> There are a few others immediately following. This was the Stratfield Say property that eventually went from the Say family to the Dabrichecourts.

Without a date, I don't even know where to start with this one. There were other Say lines out there and I have been intentionally excluding the ones I know not to be relevant to this descent.

taf

[Johnny Brananas]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 3:23:26 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:01:41 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 at 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > > > 102. Grant by William de Say, son of Geoffrey de Say, to Roger, the son of Walter Baudewyn, of land , etc., which he had in the escheat of Matilda, the daughter of Ralph de Clare in his manor of Edmonton ... [undated, but between docs. dated 1243 and 22 Edward I.]
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22manuscripts+commission%22+%22de+say%22+%22de+clare%22&pg=PA30&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > taf, do you have a Gov. William Leete line? Someone here did, I think.
> Not me.

Maybe it was DR.

> > Looks like further on in this same vol. of the Hist. MSS. Comission there are a few entries pertaining to that line as given by Gary Boyd Roberts ...
> >
> > "Grant by Robert de Say and Aliz de Stuteville his wife, daughter of William de Stuteville, to the monks of Stratfield, of land in Stratfield, etc. ... [undated]
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Report_of_the_Royal_Commission_on_Histor/2vpKAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22grant+by+robert+de+say+and+aliz%22&pg=PA356&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > There are a few others immediately following. This was the Stratfield Say property that eventually went from the Say family to the Dabrichecourts.
> Without a date, I don't even know where to start with this one. There were other Say lines out there and I have been intentionally excluding the ones I know not to be relevant to this descent.
>
> taf

Here's was the VCH Hampshire says on the whole descent--same time period, but I don't see overlap with the other de Says:

William de Stoteville, the founder of the hermitage of St. Leonard. Stratfieldsaye, a possession of the abbey of St. Mary Vallemont, in Normandy, was the lord of the manor towards the close of the 12th century, and in answer to his petition Joscelin, Bishop of Salisbury, and Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, between 1193 and 1205, confirmed the grant made by him to Godard and his successors at the Hermitage. (fn. 12) Alice wife of Ellis de Boeles is called the heiress of Stratfield in the charter whereby she confirmed to Godard the hermit and the brethren of that place the gifts made by her father William de Stoteville, (fn. 13) but whether she succeeded William directly or followed Robert de Stoteville, whose gifts to the abbey of St. Mary Vallemont were confirmed by his relict Leonia, (fn. 14) is uncertain. It seems probable, however, that her father gave Stratfield to her in free marriage, for the manor was subsequently held of the Stotevilles. Thus John de Stoteville is given as the overlord in the Testa de Nevill, (fn. 15) and Robert de Stoteville as overlord (fn. 16) had the custody of the lands and heir of the deceased lord of the manor at the beginning of the reign of Edward I. (fn. 17) Alice married as her second husband Robert de Say, and in conjunction with him granted land at Stratfield to the monks of Stratfield. (fn. 18) The land of Robert de Say at Stratfield is mentioned in a charter of 1227 disafforesting certain parts of Berkshire, (fn. 19) but the exact date of his death is uncertain. He was apparently succeeded by Sir William de Say, in whose life-time the name of the manor was changed from Stratfield Stoteville to Stratfieldsaye. Thus in 1260–1 William, as "William de Say of Stratfieldsaye," released the abbey of St. Mary Vallemont and the hermitage of St. Leonard from the obligation of paying suit at his court, (fn. 20) whereas some time previously he had granted a piece of land at Stratfield Stoteville to the church of St. Leonard, and the monks there. (fn. 21) William at his death left a widow Sybil and a son Robert, (fn. 22) who died at the beginning of the reign of Edward I, leaving a widow Emma and an infant son Thomas. (fn. 23) In 1278 Sybil de Say was successful in recovering the third part of the manor as her dower from Robert de Stoteville, (fn. 24) but Emma de Say refused to give up her son to his custody, and therefore went dowerless. (fn. 25) Thomas de Say presented a rector to the church of Stratfieldsaye during the episcopacy of John of Pontoise (fn. 26) (1282–1304), and in 1312 the manor was settled on him and his wife Isabel in fee tail, with contingent remainder to John Bluet the lord of Silchester and his heirs. (fn. 27) Thomas, as Sir Thomas de Say, presented to the church between 1323 and 1333, (fn. 28) and died leaving as his heir his daughter Sybil. (fn. 29) His widow Isabel subsequently married John Wace, (fn. 30) who as lord of the manor presented to the church during the episcopacy of Adam Orlton (fn. 31) (1333–45). Even after the death of Isabel John seems to have retained the manor. Thus he obtained licence from William Edendon, Bishop of Winchester (1346–66), to hear mass in the oratory of his house in the parish of Stratfieldsaye, (fn. 32) and in 1346 it was stated that John Wace and Margaret his wife were holding three-quarters of a knight's fee in Stratfieldsaye formerly belonging to Thomas de Say. (fn. 33) It was probably on this account that Edward III in 1347 commanded the fine of 1312 to be inspected, (fn. 34) and soon afterwards no doubt John Wace surrendered the manor to Sybil, daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas de Say. The name of Sybil's husband is unknown, (fn. 35) but before 1370 the manor had passed into the Dabridgecourt family (fn. 36) by the marriage of her only daughter and heir Elizabeth with Sir Nicholas Dabridgecourt. (fn. 37) Sir Nicholas died on 20 May 1400, (fn. 38) and on the death of his widow four years later the manor passed to his son Sir John Dabridgecourt, (fn. 39) who died on 18 August 1418, leaving a son and heir John.